ReviewBehavioural processes2014
Suboptimal choice by pigeons: an analog of human gambling behavior.
Review in Behavioural processes, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Why do we seek information about the future? On the origins of subjective value without instrumental value.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Rats' performance in a suboptimal choice procedure implemented in a natural-foraging analogue.Animal cognition · 2024Article
- Neural circuitry of information seeking.Current opinion in behavioral sciences · 2020Article
- Outcome expectancy and suboptimal risky choice in nonhuman primates.Learning & behavior · 2020Article
- Contribution of alcohol- and cigarette-related cues to concurrent reinforcer choice in humans.Behavioural processes · 2020Article
- Human Choice Predicted by Obtained Reinforcers, Not by Reinforcement Predictors.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Human and pigeon suboptimal choice.Learning & behavior · 2019Article
- Contribution of cannabis-related cues to concurrent reinforcer choice in humans.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2019Article
- Contribution of cocaine-related cues to concurrent monetary choice in humans.Psychopharmacology · 2018Article
- Reinforcement learning models of risky choice and the promotion of risk-taking by losses disguised as wins in rats.Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition · 2017Article
- Suboptimal choice in rats: Incentive salience attribution promotes maladaptive decision-making.Behavioural brain research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Reprinted as
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Human gambling often involves the choice of a low probability but high valued outcome over a high probability (certain) low valued outcome (not gambling) that is economically more optimal. We have developed an analog of gambling in which pigeons prefer a suboptimal alternative that infrequently provides a signal for a high probability (or high magnitude) of reinforcement over an optimal alternative that always provides a signal for a lower probability (or lower magnitude) of reinforcement. We have identified two mechanisms that may be responsible for this suboptimal behavior. First, the effect of nonreinforcement results in considerably less inhibition of choice than ideally it should. Second, the frequency of the occurrence of the signal for a high probability or high magnitude of reinforcement is less important than ideally it should. Also analogous to human gambling is the finding that pigeons that are normally food restricted choose suboptimally, whereas those that are minimally food restricted choose optimally. In addition, pigeons that are singly housed choose suboptimally, whereas those that are exposed to a more enriched environment choose less suboptimally. We believe that these findings have implications for the understanding and treatment of problem gambling behavior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.